Obama, The New Yorker, And Shared Enemies

MarketWatch Media Columnist Jon Friedman Waited In Vain For A Rally Around The New Yorker

(MarketWatch)  The New Yorker's widely publicized cover, which depicts Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama as a stereotypical Muslim and Michelle Obama as a militant, is getting an overwhelmingly negative reaction.

This is predictable -- and rather ridiculous.

The naysayers have stayed in the spotlight this week, partly because the rest of the media failed to stick up for one of their own, for a change. The New Yorker is now stranded on an island.

Pointed sarcasm

But the critics should know better. Surely, even the most politically dogmatic people MUST be intelligent enough to understand that the New Yorker is making a point through sarcasm. The weekly is mocking the irrational prejudices that plenty of Americans harbor about the Obamas.

The magazine is sticking its finger in the eye of every bigot who hates the Obamas because they're African-Americans, every racist who seeks to polarize the electorate and every ignoramus who mistrusts the senator from Illinois without examining his record and background.

Something else is going on here as well. This criticism centers on conservatives' strong dislike -- "hatred" is such a nasty word, no? -- of both Obama and the New Yorker, two of the most visible and successful symbols of liberal America. While there was also carping in some liberal quarters, the most vocal anger seemed to come from the other side.

The liberals' opponents are jumping on the bandwagon partly in the hope of making the New Yorker look bad (i.e. unpatriotic). The magazine has written many stories blasting the Bush administration's policies, especially its handling of Iraq.

It's a fair question to introduce the New York Times' much-criticized (by me, among others) story earlier this year on Republican presidential aspirant Sen. John McCain. The difference is that the Times was accused of publishing unsubstantiated rumors in a piece about McCain, whose candidacy it probably won't endorse later this year. The New Yorker, regarded as a highly liberal magazine, would be inclined to root for Obama (if privately) to win the election.

Media apathy

At such a tense time, I expected a pro-New Yorker rallying cry from the media. Don't forget that we in the media love to lavish attention on ourselves. We practically live for it.

Remember, when "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert died, the Washington and television media covered the story as exhaustively as they would the passing of a head of state or a pope. The New York City media reacted in much the same way to the death of magazine legend Clay Felker.

Perhaps there is an anti-New Yorker backlash, too.

Inveterate Media Web readers know about much of the publishing industry's resentment of the New Yorker. This has taken many subtle forms in the past few years, ranging from the magazine receiving fewer National Magazine Award nominations and wins than in past years to the embrace of crosstown rival New York magazine. .

Among the people who inherently dislike the New Yorker and Obama, which group has stronger feelings?

I'd call it a tie.

MEDIA WATCH QUESTION OF THE DAY: How did the New Yorker cover make you feel? a) delighted b) amused c) angry d) furious.

Media Web appears on Wednesdays and Fridays at MarketWatch.com.

[greeneyes222]

"How did the New Yorker cover make you feel? a) delighted b) amused c) angry d) furious."

Definitely b) amused.

The reaction of the Obama camp was hugely disappointing to me. Political satire is an American institution, so to have them react they way they did told me a) they''re not ready to play with the big boys, and b) they demand extra special treatment (although on what basis I''m still not clear).

The reaction of the media was even more disappointing. Never did they show their bias and lack of professionalism more. Cute but supremely ignorant young things breathlessly whining because someone "mistreated" their candidate. There was no mistreatment (see above), and the election isn''t for third grade hall monitors, it''s for the leader of the free world.

The Muslims overreacted to a Danish cartoon; Obama''s followers overreacted in the same way to this. It seems they have more in common than I realized.

[joe1022joe]

It is true that now Obama claims to be a Christian. But it is also true that one-half of his family, which is all of his natural father''s family, is Moslem and lives in Africa today. Literally half of Obama%u2019s family is African and Moslem. These are not relatives from a 300 year old slave ancestor. These are his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. His step-father is a Moslem and lives in Indonesia. While a child, Obama lived in Indonesia and attended a Wahabe Moslem school. His religion was stated as Moslem. These are not connections that can be cast aside with an, "Oh, that was then, this is now" attitude. When you place this in combination with his wife''s comments about being proud of America for the first time when her husband (Obama) was running for president, his very close 20 year relationship with a black Christian preacher who clearly hates the USA and his association with an unrepentant Weatherman who publically stated the day before 9/11 he was sorry he hadn%u2019t set off more bombs, you have a picture of a man about whom the American people have a right to be concerned. Obama is an accidental American. He was born on our soil, but he does not share most of the ideas and experiences we take for granted in Americans. Race is part of the subject, but only as an indicator and illuminator of the concealed ideas and attitudes of Obama.

[joe1022joe]

It is true that now Obama claims to be a Christian. But it is also true that one-half of his family, which is all of his natural father''''s family, is Moslem and lives in Africa today. Literally half of Obama%u2019s family is African and Moslem. These are not relatives from a 300 year old slave ancestor. These are his brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc. His step-father is a Moslem and lives in Indonesia. While a child, Obama lived in Indonesia and attended a Wahabe Moslem school. His religion was stated as Moslem. These are not connections that can be cast aside with an, "Oh, that was then, this is now" attitude. When you place this in combination with his wife''''s comments about being proud of America for the first time when her husband (Obama) was running for president, his very close 20 year relationship with a black Christian preacher who clearly hates the USA and his association with an unrepentant Weatherman who publically stated the day before 9/11 he was sorry he hadn%u2019t set off more bombs, you have a picture of a man about whom the American people have a right to be concerned.

Obama is an accidental American. He was born on our soil, but he does not share most of the ideas and experiences we take for granted in Americans. Race is part of the subject, but only as an indicator and illuminator of the concealed ideas and attitudes of Obama.

[ariel133]

Funny, the New Yorker is Liberal paper- what does that really tell you? It tells you many liberals are doubting the word of a man who doesn''t know his own mind and wants to lead a nation. That is just plain scary.

[ariel133]

It''s funny how Obama is so sensitive about this, but had no qualms about insulting an entire group of people by calling them bitter people who cling to guns and religion.

[mcvet]

Funny, the New Yorker is Liberal paper- what does that really tell you? It tells you many liberals are doubting the word of a man who doesn''''t know his own mind and wants to lead a nation. That is just plain scary.

Posted by Ariel133 at 07:13 AM : Jul 16, 2008

ROFLMAO This POOR Klan Man ask a question about "liberals" then pretends to be one, answering the question. Me thinks the boy needs and education on the history of the nation, it was founded by Liberals and MOST if not all it''s greatest leaders are Liberals. He also needs to stop trying to understand the LIES produced by his pals and himself. To continue to play on the fears of people, using lies about the man''s religion and race, is about as UN-American as one can get. SO mr. pretender let''s let the fuhrer and shooter know you''re out here doing your best!! SIEG HEIL BUSH

[mcvet]

The Muslims overreacted to a Danish cartoon; Obama''''s followers overreacted in the same way to this. It seems they have more in common than I realized.

Posted by greeneyes222 at 06:47 AM : Jul 16, 2008

Typical Fascist! ROFLMAO ONLY in the Fascist mind could there be a link between the reaction of the Muslim''s to the Cartoon of Mohammad and this rediculous Cartoon depicting the LIES of the Right against Obama. Now listen carefully Swastika Breath and I''ll use small words so your very small mind will understand. Peoples objections to the New Yorker Cartoon was that it inflames the RADICAL RIGHT, you know freaks like you, to CONTINUE their attacks based on LIES against a good American. Good Grief are you freaks stupid or what?? ROFLMAO Now let''s let the Reich know you''re being a good bootlicker today!! SIEG HEIL MEIN FUHRER!! Thatta boy!!

[mcvet]

Posted by joe1022joe at 07:11 AM : Jul 16, 2008

YOU do realize that the New Yorker was pointing at YOU with that Cartoon don''t you? Yep they were telling the WORLD that YOU are a LIAR... yep Sparky YOU are a LIAR and all that you post is LIES!! ROFLMAO Course you aren''t smart enough to understand that BUT what has happened with this blow up about the cartoon is that NOW, EVERY day in the news media, people who MIGHT have believed your lies will NOT do so.. ROFLMAO Now let''s let the Grand Wizard know you are here!! SIEG HEIL GRAND WIZARD!!

The object of the satire isn''t in the picture ... not satire slander.

[zzzzzzzizi]

What kind of satire shows the BURNING OF THE AMERICAN FLAG and the PICTURE OF OSAMA BIN LADEN IN THE WHITE HOUSE????????????????????The magazine should be BANNED or BURNED

[shafteriffic]

Ron Paul RULES!

[flreason]

I would have had no problem with the cover if it had somehow pointed to the Obama articles inside. The problem is that viewed without that lens the picture becomes incindiary and tasteless as charged. The last thing we need is more fuel to feed the reactionary elements who share the Limbaugh de-mentality.

[ubrew12]

I thought it was funny.

I''m worried that the reaction to this cover will stop them from offering the cover of McCain in a wheelchair being pushed by Mrs. McCain''s ''boy''

[pdchapin]

So every time a cartoonist draws W as a cowboy or in some other outlandish outfit we should think that the artist is mocking liberals for saying nasty things about the President.

This was just a badly done cartoon that depended on the public picking up on the fact that it was a bank shot at another target. Given the high probability that the average reader wouldn''t recognize that the New Yorker were trying to do something odd, I can understand why the Obama people were upset.

[dnsallday]

I think the people who read the New Yorker will understand it to be satire, although many will view it as very much a slam to Muslims around this country and that will just fuel the stereotype.

What is extemely damaging, is that this cover will be shown all over the internet and cable news, over and over and over again. It will be misconstrued, shown as ''proof'' that even the liberal left, sees Obama as a Muslim and a danger.

In the corporate world, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. Personal responsibility is something the regular folks are supposed to have as they get screwed. And people sit back and demand nothing from the corporations.

[joyous88]

the main stream propaganda machine, owned by the conservative wealthy, the republicons, the big churchs

has always been the enemy of free thinkers, democrats,
liberal minded tolerant peoples everywhere,

they are FASCIST, their only concern greed, profit,

they are UnAmerican republicons and theirs is a war against humanity, not a war against terrorism

[suzyku]

This is NOT funny! The cover angered me. The ignorant, low information voters out there will see only a cover and that is the image that will stick with them, they will NOT go beyond that and this does not in any way help Obama. The cover is plain stupid, does not accomplish the goal the New Yorker "says" it wanted to. Bad idea, bad cover!

The main problem with the New Yorker cover "cartoon" is the mixing of fact with fiction. People have seen the fist bump and know it is fact. The rest is fiction but because the fist bump is real the viewer can, if so desired, believe the rest is true.

While the regular New Yorker subscriber or reader might anticipate this as satire, many of the viewers once it was or would be put in distribution via TV coverage and/or the INTERNET, may not "know" this publication''s history of satire. It would have helped things if there had been a caption such as "This is what some Republicans and/or conservatives want you to believe about Obama". The New Yorker should have, could have and hopefully will in the future realize there is an informal distribution network and they have to adjust to it by making sure the intent is stated on the actual page that will be distributed.

One of the journalistic issues is that when the falsehoods are presented or used, too often journalists just let it pass without confronting the person being interviewed regarding the truthfulness of their statements.In conclusion, mocking and sarcasm should be based on fact not fiction, Otherwise, you may be just feeding the ignorance and stupidity that often prevails in society.

[Razzl]

Sorry Friedman, I''m not buying it. The New Yorker cover didn''t work as intended because the editors didn''t sufficiently telegraph that it was parody (which they wouldn''t have had to do if it were an interior illustration for a story, because then only New Yorker readers would have seen it) for a public dumb enough to believe a lot of this stuff as real in the first place. I also don''t buy the idea that New Yorker is somehow the object of a campaign against them; it takes too much of a highbrow taste to bother reading it in the first place, let alone bother to get mad about anything they say in it...

[ggrape]

Well Jon Friedman, you got it all wrong. Why has the media not rallied around the New Yorker? I believe they''re as disgusted as I am, and you sir do not get the broader picture.

Satire of Obama, McCain, or any other candidate is appropriate and necessary in our society. But I go back to the central purpose of the news media: to shine the light of truth where there is ignorance of it in the public. By current polls, 13% of americans still believe Obama is a muslim. THIRTEEN PERCENT!!! The New Yorker knew this, and should have known that their cover would feed more into that ignorance than highlight the GOP''s hateful lies about Obama.

Does anyone suspect McCain or Hillary Clinton of being a muslim? No. But a significant number of folks are ignorant about Obama, and the New Yorker should have chosen another means of fighting the gop''s ignorance, rather than fueling it (not to mention the ignorance among independents and liberals who make up part of that 13%).

So shame on the New Yorker, and a raspberry to Jon Friedman for not seeing the bigger picture.

[tlobe]

I have on occassion read the New Yorker and appreciate its satire and style. However, this cover is not an issue of misuinderstood satire. What shocks me is the attitude of the editor as stated in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN this past Tuesday (July 15): the magazine is meant only for the sophisticated--read upper crust liberals (the phony intellectuals); the hoi polloi should not be reading his magazine--the underclasses won''t get, that is, are unable to understand, the New Yorker''s intellectualism qua snobbery. This elitism is totally misplaced. Editors of this ilk give journalism a bad name, but then they''ve always been suspect. The New Yorker has belied press''s claim that they are defenders of the public trust. That just ain''t (sic) so. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with truth, rather it only protects one''s right to without fear of retaliation and public persecution by governments at any level of authority. The New Yorker is free to look down its nose at those of us in the lower classes at anytime the editors choose to do so. The converse also holds. Those of us not a part of the magazines target audience are free to resent and throw "tomatoes" of negative criticism whenever the New Yorker goes too far. The outcry of protests of this cover cartoon is not only justified but are as much an exercie of free speech as the New Yorker''s right to publish such trash. Those that decry this criticism are the ones that don''t get it and should hold their tongues.

[kennedy7955]

I will be voting for Obama. The satirical cover in question hardly offends me and shows that the NY''er magazine made a serious error in judgment. It is not a reflection of Obama but that of the Editor and the magazine which has stooped to an all time low for even them.

[blitzder]

If it was''nt for the ''liberals'' during the American rebellion of 1776, we would all be paying taxes to the Queen of England right now, and fighting their wars. Any progress since then was also because of the ingenuity of the liberals who are in the majority in the united states of today.

The conservatives all went to Canada at the time, come to think of it, thats where we should ship out all the conservatives and the Rush Limbaugh''s and Bill O''reilly''s and their followers today. This country would not be in a recession, with the 9 trillion dollar Iraq war of bankruptcy hanging around our necks.

Conservative policies of blood, gore, mayhem, deficit spending, racism, bigotry, Katrina fiasco, Banks going belly up along with Enron, GM, Bear Stearns, Mortgage industry and Airlines, its pretty much the whole ball of wax. Pathetic conservative policies are the real issues in this election.

LIBERAL POLICIES ARE WHAT MAKE THIS COUNTRY WORK. Conservatives don''t or can''t think. They are a disaster for the nation. Americans should wake up and get real.

[medmom04]

Clearly the New Yorker was poking fun at the fearfully prejudiced uneducated folks who may believe that the Obama''s might be of a certain religious sect or mindset that fuels their fears. It IS sad that we would not want the New Yorker to make fun of said ill-informed folks, simply because being against educating themselves, they may misinterpret the New Yorker''s cover as falling in line with their own backwoods deflated set of values and ideals.

[paris1969]

It is funny how people who support a candidate who has spent 20+ years in a racist-anti-White-America church and uses the reference "typical white person" .. call those who do not support him ignorant and uneducated ... maybe being an "educated fool" is what causes this. The New Yorker cover is for the liberals and urban dwellers ... rural voters don''t much buy these type of publications!

[libsluv2spit]

the New Yorker''s intent with the ''satire'' is to mock the conservatives that stereotyped obama as such..the result was devestating and a disaster..a liberal newsource and dwindled down to ''jackarse'' style of toilet humor.

hence..liberal obama was a victim of ''friendly fire'' from the liberal new Yorker..

[bombadil4]

It is really NOT the job of the New Yorker or any other literary/artistic individual or organization to make political "judgements" or "correctness" a barrier to what they create. The fact that we are such a dumbed down society that many individuals might take the cover at face value should be no barrier against the age-old use of satire, caricature, etc. Those of you offended can rest assured that as our illiteracy and drop-our rates continue to spiral down into the pits, only NASCAR and Profession Wrestling magazines will survive.

[ajmarine111]

hence..liberal obama was a victim of ''''friendly fire'''' from the liberal new Yorker..


Posted by libsluv2spit at 03:11 PM : Jul 16, 2008



In order for it to have come across like The New Yorker intended, they should have had Rush with a paint brush painting the cartoon.

Then people would have gotten the humor in it.

[noloyalisti]

I think the New Yorker underestimates the ignorance and stupidity of the American people. We may be the most ignorant people overall in the world from what I have seen abroad.

A large number of Americans voted for Bushoccio. A large number were fooled by the neo con men over Iraq and a large number think Obama is a Muslim. I rest my case.

[ajmarine111]

I think the New Yorker underestimates the ignorance and stupidity of the American people.

Posted by noloyalisti at 05:52 PM : Jul 16, 2008


I would have liked to have been in the room when they decided this picture would make a good cover. I just wonder how the conversation went.

[ausus-2009]

I was listening to a conversation on an overseas radio station where the journalists were commenting on the cartoon. They said American''s just don''t get irony. I tend to agree. The symbolism was so over the top I would have thought that nobody would have taken it seriously. Admittedly it was more a cover I would have expected to see on Mad than the New Yorker.

[vincan-2009]

I think the New Yorker is not so liberal. Just like all the other media in America is not liberal. The travesty of the Bush presidency would not have happened to us without a very republican media who makes sure they are on top of every story running over the democrat and propping up the republican. That means it will be a miracle if Obama is our next president. He deserves to be and he is the one who will do right for us, but the dark forces who want to hang on to power by are like snarling dogs. Corruption comes easy to these power hungry, greedy republicans who have gone amuck.

[ausus-2009]

Vincan,

What is your evidence the New Yorker is not liberal. They endorsed Kerry in the last election and they have long had a reputation of carrying liberal writers.

I would put CBS and the San Francisco Chronicle among dozens of others on the left side of center.

If you mean by liberal there are little large scale radical-socialist media in the US you would be right. That ideology is too far from the mainstream to get a substantial following.

[standlee5]

How did the New Yorker cover make you feel? a) delighted b) amused c) angry d) furious.


They left out e) confused.

[mtracy9]

The New Yorker is just another example of the U.S corporate media and its owner''s uncomfortableness with the prospect of Obama as President. So the corporate elite comes up with a cartoon that attempts to reinforce a scary stereotype of Obama among the masses. They defend their smear by saying this is just satire, and if others don''t see it as such, it''s because they are unsophisticated. Hopefully, many of the The New Yorker''s subscribers will see this editorial caracature for what it is -- dirty politics -- and cancel their subscriptions.

[ausus-2009]

mtracy9,

It was once said that the right saw reds under every bed; you and some of the other correspondents seem to see some vast right-wing anti-Obama corporate conspiracy under every bed.

As I said before, Americans don''t get irony. If this was printed in a British magazine, the readers would get the joke.

[andor3]

all good for Sen. Obama. He is a genius at politics. Somehow he is seen as the strong front runner, the underdog, and the tough fighter guarding his turf... all at the same time. amazing... Presidential material for sure!

[aakalan]

You missed the point - as most in the media have.

The problem with the New Yorker cover wasn''t the fact that it was supposed to be satire, but that it was lousy satire.

It was -not- obvious to most that there was supposed to be a humorous comment on ignorance embedded in the art. After all, the New Yorker is not Mad Magazine, who would have done this well, with obvious clues to the satire (like Alfred E. Newman as Barack Obama) and outrageously funny allusions in the content.

Instead, the New Yorker produced just a lousy cover not reinforced by any supporting article (can''t judge a magazine by its cover, I guess) or any editorial explanation or expansion on the image.

The New Yorker got what it wanted: a controversial cover, much attention fron the rest of the media, more sales, more "relevance" (whatever). Unfortunately, there are many Americans who will see this idiot cover as more proof that Obama is a Muslim and his wife an extremist activist.

Humor only works if it''s funny. The New Yorker miscalculated and the artist just did a lousy job. The magazine is getting the beating it deserves for its poor judgment and poor execution.

[gunfighter51]

Why is this a surprise to anyone, what we have here is a bunch of liberals that act and think like liberals. You don''t have to be a neo-con to feel the hate of the left
All of the *** depicted on the cover was brought on by HRC and her accomplices on the left, to add Rush Limbaugh painting that picture is just idiotic, you should just put Hill and Bill on the cover with them.

[mtracy9]

Carl Bernstein''s famous article, "The CIA and the Media" gives a glimpse as to how right-wingers in the CIA control content in our so-called "liberal" media. Here is part of the article:

"There is quite an incredible spread of relationships. You don%u2019t need to manipulate Time magazine, for example, because there are [Central Intelligence] Agency people at the management level."
--William B. Bader, former CIA intelligence officer, briefing members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, The CIA and the Media, by Carl Bernstein

[mercyme884]

What surprised me was the fact that the super Liberal NewYorker even listened to me when I asked them to expose Obama for the lying, conniving, terrorist he and his wife most certainly are wow!and not surprising is that all you Liberal jerks didn''t even believe the truth of the story.

[ausus-2009]

mtracy9,

So it''s the CIA you find hiding under your bed. I am sure the CIA has better things to do than penetrate every media outlet in the US. It would certainly spread their resources very thin. Your argument is McCarthyism of the left.

As well, the internet ensures there are so many media channels that no one organization or group conld control them all.

Interestingly, the media control tactic was successfully employed in the UK to get the Labor Government elected. They had key operators strategically placed in major newspapers, and of course the BBC has always been a Labor Party mouthpiece.